What's new

The Cricket Thread

Buggsy61

Washed Up Member
Aug 31, 2012
5,551
8,921
Must’ve been a tough one for most Ozzie’s watching that as I can’t imagine they’re big fans of the Kiwis either.

Bit like us spurs fans watching the Europa final between Arsenal and Chelsea.

Maybe they took some solace in watching NZ lose. You’d imagine the rivalry with them is more intense than it is with the Poms but they do take cricket pretty seriously and I guess the England/Australia cricket rivalry is a bit special
Doubt that very much- for most Aussies I know it’s ‘anyone but England!’. Not that they are massive fans of kiwis due to the rugby rivalry but their thing with the poms runs deep and is handed down generations- it’s great though- wouldn’t want it any other way!
 

JimmyG2

SC Supporter
Dec 7, 2006
15,014
20,779
England and New Zealand fought each other to a standstill
and the only just result was a tie and joint Champions.

We fluked it anyway with the deflected four and possibly drew it with an correctly awarded run

New Zealand achieved their score losing less wickets than England did
to achieve the same score and should have been adjudged worthy winners.

The Super-Over is a nonsense, an invented travesty of the game simply for unnecessary added tension.

Why the number of boundaries to decide the winners?
Why not dot balls to reward the bowlers?

Sorry England to piss on your Parade, and well done, sort of.

Enjoyed the quality of the Tournament despite my misgivings about limited over cricket.
Tricky wickets and some brilliant bowling made it less of a bash-fest
and the fielding and catching was awesome most of the time.

Enjoy your 4 years in the sun. You are very lucky boys.
 

E17yid

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2013
16,985
30,495
I used to watch cricket but haven’t in years. The one thing I noticed was how amazingly high the standard of fielding was compared to when I was a kid.

I remember Jonty Rhodes and Ricky Ponting being amazing (especially Jonty) but shit has gone next level these days. Impressive.
 

Trix

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2004
19,337
329,027
I used to watch cricket but haven’t in years. The one thing I noticed was how amazingly high the standard of fielding was compared to when I was a kid.

I remember Jonty Rhodes and Ricky Ponting being amazing (especially Jonty) but shit has gone next level these days. Impressive.
More money in the game means more incentive to work on stuff like that I guess.
 

Trix

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2004
19,337
329,027
England and New Zealand fought each other to a standstill
and the only just result was a tie and joint Champions.

We fluked it anyway with the deflected four and possibly drew it with an correctly awarded run

New Zealand achieved their score losing less wickets than England did
to achieve the same score and should have been adjudged worthy winners.

The Super-Over is a nonsense, an invented travesty of the game simply for unnecessary added tension.

Why the number of boundaries to decide the winners?
Why not dot balls to reward the bowlers?

Sorry England to piss on your Parade, and well done, sort of.

Enjoyed the quality of the Tournament despite my misgivings about limited over cricket.
Tricky wickets and some brilliant bowling made it less of a bash-fest
and the fielding and catching was awesome most of the time.

Enjoy your 4 years in the sun. You are very lucky boys.
They changed it to boundaries to encourage more attacking play. You want to attract more young people into watching and playing the game although there is a lot to be said for quality bowling big hitting is the wow factor. I do agree though it isn't the best way to do things. It should have gone to group placement, H2H, or imo run rate throughout the tournament.
 

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,646
93,315
England and New Zealand fought each other to a standstill
and the only just result was a tie and joint Champions.

We fluked it anyway with the deflected four and possibly drew it with an correctly awarded run

New Zealand achieved their score losing less wickets than England did
to achieve the same score and should have been adjudged worthy winners.

The Super-Over is a nonsense, an invented travesty of the game simply for unnecessary added tension.

Why the number of boundaries to decide the winners?
Why not dot balls to reward the bowlers?

Sorry England to piss on your Parade, and well done, sort of.

Enjoyed the quality of the Tournament despite my misgivings about limited over cricket.
Tricky wickets and some brilliant bowling made it less of a bash-fest
and the fielding and catching was awesome most of the time.

Enjoy your 4 years in the sun. You are very lucky boys.
You've done nothing except moan all tournament, pretty sad stuff really if this is all you've got to say when we've just won the World Cup.
Very sad stuff infact...maybe you should just stick to the tests.

I've just watched the final couple of overs, and the super over again, I couldn't really take it all in yesterday as I was just a bag of nerves.
Ben Stokes performance was just incredible.
 

dondo

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2006
8,603
14,091
England and New Zealand fought each other to a standstill
and the only just result was a tie and joint Champions.

We fluked it anyway with the deflected four and possibly drew it with an correctly awarded run

New Zealand achieved their score losing less wickets than England did
to achieve the same score and should have been adjudged worthy winners.

The Super-Over is a nonsense, an invented travesty of the game simply for unnecessary added tension.

Why the number of boundaries to decide the winners?
Why not dot balls to reward the bowlers?

Sorry England to piss on your Parade, and well done, sort of.

Enjoyed the quality of the Tournament despite my misgivings about limited over cricket.
Tricky wickets and some brilliant bowling made it less of a bash-fest
and the fielding and catching was awesome most of the time.

Enjoy your 4 years in the sun. You are very lucky boys.


Nobody would have been happy with a tie and a shared trophy.
The rules are the rules they were put in place before the tournament started rightly or wrongly and everyone has to except it if it goes for you or not.
I do feel sorry for New Zealand as they definitely didn’t get the rub of the green yesterday but imo they were lucky to get to the knockout stages as the weather certainly worked for them and against Pakistan
 

Buggsy61

Washed Up Member
Aug 31, 2012
5,551
8,921
I used to watch cricket but haven’t in years. The one thing I noticed was how amazingly high the standard of fielding was compared to when I was a kid.

I remember Jonty Rhodes and Ricky Ponting being amazing (especially Jonty) but shit has gone next level these days. Impressive.
Your’e right- can’t remember a tournament where the standard has been this universally high to be honest, but we seem to be moving to specialist one day players/teams. I remember Derek Randall in the 70’s and he was just as good as any around today, but for every Randall there was a Tufnell being hid down at deep third man where he might not have to catch anything!?
 

Buggsy61

Washed Up Member
Aug 31, 2012
5,551
8,921
One for the nostalgists like me. He (Randall) was some fielder and as fast as a whippet. They nicknamed him arkle after the racehorse

 

Ionman34

SC Supporter
Jun 1, 2011
7,182
16,793
I appreciate they have to decide somehow, but surely having wickets in hand Vs being all out is a much better decider than the number of boundaries? It would make far more sense for NZ to have "won by 2 wickets" to be honest. I would accept if broth teams had the same number of runs AND the same number of wickets that you need to go to a super over, but as NZ still had wickets in hand it seems to me to be very harsh that that counts for nothing
Had this chat at work. There’s no sense in bewailing the result as everyone had agreed to and understood the rules.
Having said that, I do think the “most boundaries “ ruling is bollocks, it doesn’t demonstrate that a team is more attacking at all. For example, you could have a team that racks up 300 plus because the batsmen have consistently attacked the field, putting constant pressure on them by running singles, two’and three’s almost constantly, with a few boundaries thrown in. Conversely, you could have another team offering a dead bat to 4 balls each over but hitting a boundary each over. Both get to the same run total, but one side has bored the pants off you for two thirds of the game, yet they’d win it as the stat actually skews the truth.

I don’t agree with the wickets in hand angle either. The fact is that both scored the same amount of runs, wickets in hand are, and should remain, irrelevant.

The fairest way to end it is the simplest, keep playing the extra over until 1 side out scores the other. No fucking about with silly statistics, just play until one has more runs than the other. Simple
 

Archibald&Crooks

Aegina Expat
Admin
Feb 1, 2005
55,533
204,721
Having said that, I do think the “most boundaries “ ruling is bollocks, it doesn’t demonstrate that a team is more attacking at all.
At all? Not even a bit?

haha, that's ridiculous

But yeah, replaying the super over until a winner is found would probably be a decent shout
 
Last edited:

spursfan1991

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2008
1,747
4,058
I was asked by someone that doesn't follow cricket who will win the day before the match. I said the following.

"It's a strange game because it's like tottenham v tottenham. Both teams love losing semi finals and finals. Things always go wrong, neither team will want to win, so it's most likely going to be a tie".

That run out was celebrated like the moura goal.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Aug 20, 2003
9,188
11,149
Given the nature of cricket and how often games are tied I don’t know how else you can settle a game in them circumstances.
Previously it was done on the toss of a coin, then fewer wickets, then a bowl off and since 2011 the super over.
From an entertainment perspective I’d have to stick on the side of the latter as the chances of that scenario ever happening again whereby a team wins on boundaries scored won’t ever happen again in my lifetime.
 

aussiespursguy

Well-Known Member
Mar 21, 2015
3,437
6,677
His interpretation makes no sense as it assumes the second run wouldn't have been completed.

It's just another bitter Aussie mug who is trying to tarnish the win because they hate it. Jeez we've seen a few of them in this thread already. It's pathetic.

Aussies are the worst combination of incredibly arrogant winners and bitterly sour, petty losers. Absolutely no class whatsoever.

It can't help that they are also now basically shit at all sports, despite being historically known as a great sporting nation (they actually never were). Crap at cricket, crap at rubgy, crap at football, crap at tennis. I guess they're ok at swimming :ROFLMAO:
See its shit like this that make me firmly believe you have more interest in us than we really do in you.
We have more Ashes than you, more Rugby world cups than you (oh thats right, you dont have one) More Wimbledon titles in the Pro era, and yes, more swimming everything. As for football, well yes you have one World title, and we are unlikely to ever get one.
Just some perspective, your population 55.62m (England, not UK) and ours 25.09m.

So take your "shit at all sports" and ram it down your throat.

Sorry guys but I'm pretty even on most things but don't disrespect our history.
 

Barmy_in_Palmy

El Presidente In Absentia
Jun 6, 2005
16,254
17,215
See its shit like this that make me firmly believe you have more interest in us than we really do in you.
We have more Ashes than you, more Rugby world cups than you (oh thats right, you dont have one) More Wimbledon titles in the Pro era, and yes, more swimming everything. As for football, well yes you have one World title, and we are unlikely to ever get one.
Just some perspective, your population 55.62m (England, not UK) and ours 25.09m.

So take your "shit at all sports" and ram it down your throat.

Sorry guys but I'm pretty even on most things but don't disrespect our history.
I’m no expert on rugby, but didn’t England win the 2003 World Cup? The one they held in Australia. By beating Australia in the final.
 
D

Deleted member 27995

Thought Ian Smiths commentary was pretty darn good all in all. Back to back world cups where he has had to commentate on his beloved and he still does a bang up job in my opinion.

If you can try and find the ICC montage (it's floating about on twitter) of the closing over and then super overs and watch out for his reaction (and Nasser Hussain) as they head into the super over.
 

Gb160

Well done boys. Good process
Jun 20, 2012
23,646
93,315
See its shit like this that make me firmly believe you have more interest in us than we really do in you.
We have more Ashes than you, more Rugby world cups than you (oh thats right, you dont have one) More Wimbledon titles in the Pro era, and yes, more swimming everything. As for football, well yes you have one World title, and we are unlikely to ever get one.
Just some perspective, your population 55.62m (England, not UK) and ours 25.09m.

So take your "shit at all sports" and ram it down your throat.

Sorry guys but I'm pretty even on most things but don't disrespect our history.

0_JMP_LEC_290519LFCHOUSES_31JPG.jpg
 
Top